I'll agree that Canon is behind on DR and noise because I see that in my own tests and in the tests of other reputable sites. I've even seen a lengthy discussion on DPReview about the specific patent related to sensor circuitry that is the cause of this. But scientific testing is about reproducibility, and nobody can reproduce the absurd numbers generated out of DxO. Sorry, they're a bad joke.

agree...if you look at the scores of dxo on low light iso the 1d mark 3 is destroied by a d5100; but maybe i am blind

I've personally tested DR for a number of cameras (the right way). My results match results from sites like DPReview. DxO is always off, and always quite obviously wrong.

dtaylor: How do you test DR? When I use a 42 step transmissive wedge, my DR numbers, assuming a lowest acceptable SNR of 1 (which is what I believe DXO does), pretty much match DXO results for RAW capture within 0.2 EV. And to account for lens transmission variability & different ISO mappings between cameras, I take a number of shots at 1/3EV apart & select the shot of the wedge where the brightest patch is just short of clipping... I then use these shots to build an output vs. input curve, & quantitate the range from SNR 1 to brightest patch that isn't clipped.

Pretty sure Bill Claff's DR numbers also match DXO for the most part; also he uses a possibly more meaningful number: PDR (photographic dynamic range: lowest SNR of 20 adjusting for circle of confusion of sensor). His tests also show ~2.5EV better performance of the D800. Check out his stuff here: http://home.comcast.net/~NikonD70/Charts/PDR.htm

My own 'real-world' tests also show ~3EV better DR on the D800 when I do side-by-side shots of high DR sunsets with my 5DIII vs. D800; the D800 is able to maintain highlights that the 5DIII needs a 3 or 4-stop reverse graduated ND filter to reign in (while keeping shadow noise similar between the two). Put another way: I have to overexpose my 5DIII by 2 to 3 stops at the very least to get its shadows to match the cleanliness of lifted shadows of the D800 file that was underexposed to maintain highlights.

So, respectfully, I fail to see how DXOs DR & SNR, etc., numbers are the 'odd ball out'.

To clarify: I don't at all mean this to be a personal attack; just looking for clarification. Also, I'm tired of people harping on DXO when they're just trying to do good science (though, like others, I do not pay any attention to the 'overall' sensor score... jus the raw SNR, DR, etc. numbers).

Having worked with both Nikon and Canon RAW files, I respectfully disagree. The "quality of the RAW file" includes the quality of the color. Both RAW files have a certain color cast to them. As I stated originally, you can post-process quite a bit, but just as some prefer the shadow recovery of Nikon RAW files, I prefer how color is captured (and corrected if necessary) with Canon RAW. For me, I can get the right exposure most of the time so shadow recovery is less of a concern for me than getting the colors just right. Can I post-process Nikon files and make them look great? Sure. For the look I want, it's less work with Canon RAW.

which explains how a camera with 14 bits per pixel can, according to DxOMark, actually deliver a dynamic range greater than 14 bits of EV.

Question for you: my understanding of Bayer pattern sensors is that a group of 4 monochrome {R|G|B} are de-mosaiced to form one color RGB pixel. If I combine two 14-bit wells I get (roughly) one 15-bit well. If I combine four 14-bit wells I should get (roughly) one 16-bit well. Certainly they wouldn't do a crude addition of wells, but it seems very plausible that you can get >14EV DR, even without re-normalizing. What's wrong with this interpretation?

I think the problem is that Canon simply can't improve their DR, not even if their life depended on it. They just don't know how to do it.

You keep repeating this, and it remains unsubstantiated, and likely wrong. Canon doesn't improve DR because there's no business need to do so, and it would cut into their profits to do so. They're making very nice money as things are. They will hold onto their high-DR tech until the market requires them to use it. Even Pentax has pro-sumer sensors with higher DR than Canon; you can't expect me to believe that a tech giant like Canon can't keep pace (in the lab) with Pentax. No, Canon DR will improve when it must. Right now they're trying to keep manufacturing costs down to increase profits, just like any for-profit entity would do.

Logged

jaduffy007

You keep repeating this, and it remains unsubstantiated, and likely wrong. Canon doesn't improve DR because there's no business need to do so, and it would cut into their profits to do so. They're making very nice money as things are. They will hold onto their high-DR tech until the market requires them to use it. Even Pentax has pro-sumer sensors with higher DR than Canon; you can't expect me to believe that a tech giant like Canon can't keep pace (in the lab) with Pentax. No, Canon DR will improve when it must. Right now they're trying to keep manufacturing costs down to increase profits, just like any for-profit entity would do.

Put another way...Canon is milking their loyal customer's wallets rather than focusing on producing the best product they're capable of producing. Case in point: Well, numerous options here but most recent, the 6D. Arguably the worst offender in this regard. DPreview put it perfectly:

"Overall, though, it's difficult to shake the feeling that the EOS 6D simply lacks the 'wow' factor of its main rival. Whereas Nikon seems to have taken the approach of taking away as little as possible from D800 when creating the D600, Canon appears almost to have gone the other way, removing as much as it thinks it can get away with at the price. The result is the kind of conservative, slightly unimaginative design that's become the company's hallmark."

Canon's "approach" does not inspire loyalty, rather it makes me question whether I want to support such a company at all. Why would I not choose to align my $$ with a company that pushes the edge of tech, etc in imaginative ways instead? Aren't those qualities appealing? As in the D800, D800E removing aliasing filter option, HDMI video out, D600. Sony is coming on strong too.

And look at Canon's pricing. I just have no idea what Canon is thinking any more. None.

"Overall, though, it's difficult to shake the feeling that the EOS 6D simply lacks the 'wow' factor of its main rival. Whereas Nikon seems to have taken the approach of taking away as little as possible from D800 when creating the D600, Canon appears almost to have gone the other way, removing as much as it thinks it can get away with at the price. The result is the kind of conservative, slightly unimaginative design that's become the company's hallmark."

I see nothing there that disagrees with DXO. One must simply take into account what each measurement/chart means. Those charts you linked to show higher DR at base ISO for the Nikon D800, yet lower pixel-level SNR. DXOMark shows the same thing.

Put another way...Canon is milking their loyal customer's wallets rather than focusing on producing the best product they're capable of producing.

Of course, that's how all for-profit companies work; why would Canon be any different? And why get emotional over it? If Nikon were financially stronger they'd do it too. My interpretation is that Nikon is "betting the farm" on a series of "wow" products, desperately hoping to claw back market share. Have you ever seen the movie "Big Night?" Fabulous meal, but bad for financial solvency. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0115678/

Quote

Why would I not choose to align my $$ with a company that pushes the edge of tech, etc in imaginative ways instead? Aren't those qualities appealing? As in the D800, D800E removing aliasing filter option, HDMI video out, D600. Sony is coming on strong too.

That's your choice, it's how "the market" works. There is no personal relationship between you and Canon; and if you start buying Nikon there will be no personal relationship there either. Both companies want your money, and are trying different tactics to get it. That's all.

Quote

And look at Canon's pricing. I just have no idea what Canon is thinking any more. None.

That's why I finally decided to switch in next months. I just do want to pay Canon any more. Overpriced , old tech and trust me-very faulty gear, also what is more important seems that they do want to develop any more. I don't wantwaste another two years to get 6D2 with 5 crosstypes and 10EV DR. No more. that's my experience. There nothing much to say. You do not have to agree. Everyone has choice.

only because they have build a big userbase in the past. but if they go on like this... i would not be suprised if sony and nikon have gained market share over the last year.

That's how "the Market" works. If they lose market share Canon will take their profits from the last few years and build a more competitive product. Then Nikon and Sony users will complain about their brand lagging.

It's business, it's not personal. It's not an attempt to insult you. It's merely an attempt to make profit.

Logged

Canon-F1

That's how "the Market" works. If they lose market share Canon will take their profits from the last few years and build a more competitive product. Then Nikon and Sony users will complain about their brand lagging.

It's business, it's not personal. It's not an attempt to insult you. It's merely an attempt to make profit.

that does not work very well sometimes.... have a look at sony (tv biz) or nokia for example.

it´s hard to get user to switch once they have invested into a system.that works for canon today... but if you loose entirely new customers it´s hard to get them back.